Those of us who have been following various media outlets know that one of the biggest stories of this election is how Mitt Romney suffered a surprising defeat despite the fundraising Juggernaut Super-PACs at his back. What is it about these results that are so telling and what might it mean for the Republican party in the future?

Much of the Republican presidential campaign ran on the 2004 formula: lasso the passion and fervor of the evangelical Christian, Sub-urban, white population, and you will be able to out bid the traditional urban minority vote. While this may have worked for G. W. Bush in '04, Romney was less fortunate because he found himself pushing a platform that encompassed an anti-hispanic immigration policy, an anti-women abortion policy, and -- in the wake of the Occupy Wall Street protests just a year prior -- a perceived anti-middle class tax plan. And, while this plan might have helped him in 2004, the exponential population growth of these minorities made them a demographic that is increasingly important. Romney positioned himself on a policy platform that left him perceived by a majority of America as out-of-touch. Indeed, 93% of blacks, 73% of Asians, 67% of unmarried women, 60% of those making less than $50k per year, and just under half of those making $50-99,999 per year, all voted for Obama--resulting in a decisive electoral victory AND a win of the popular vote. Who voted for Romney? 78% of white evangelical Christians, 54% making more than $100K, and 59% of white (regardless of religion), 52% of men (of those, 60% of them were married), and over 50% of those over the age of 45.

This election was VERY telling: Romney's message resonated--but only with a single voter archetype with a waning leverage to determine the policy platform of the winning president. This is a big wake up call for the Republican party who has continuously marginalized itself on social issues such as abortion and gay rights because of their outdated platform to appeal to an outnumbered demographic.

Many say the billions of dollars spent in campaign funding may not have had an effect, and this may decide the level of campaign funding in the future. But the lesson to be learned here is more than that: Much like an investment portfolio, if candidates wish to lure big money investors, they're going to have to diversify their message. The Democratic party has not had a succeeding president in the White house after an 8 year term since Harry Truman succeeded FDR. If Republicans want to continue that trend, we're likely to see a much more moderate Republican Party in 2016.